of course this is a great opportunity for Obama, to put his (another, though not the first) mark on the court, but geez -- wasn't 2010 already proving to be an exciting enough milieu of obstructionist backbiting, deceit and angst?

Last edited by Major Tom on Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:09 am; edited 1 time in total

Impartial ideological analysis shows that the court is unusually skewed to the right as-is and there's currently a bad trend of extremely callous rulings helped along by this weird functional makeup. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and Kelo v. New London were both extreme examples of (I believe) 5-4 straight-up demonstrations of the board's current worrisome makeup.

In its current state, the greatly aging Stevens acted as the prime mover and asset to the civil liberties/leftward thought bloc and he's essentially pivotal in that regard. Losing him is going to take a bad situation and probably make it worse.

it's a mark of how far right the court has moved when you realized stevens, who was appointed by a republican, is now considered the leader of the liberal wing of the court.

we are probably stuck with a solid, radically conservative block on the court for some years, given the youth of roberts and alito. even scallia is easily good for another decade or more - he's only 74, and supreme court justices do seem to go on well into their 80's. my guess is that the first of that block to retire will be thomas - he's only 61, but he doesn't seem to be enjoying himself, and he's sure not building any legacy he needs to hang on to complete. he's such a party hack, though, he'll hang on doing nothing until the next republican president comes around. really, our only hope for a major change back towards even the center (never mind the left) is if this lot gets struck by lightning.

that being said, i sorta hope obama goes all out and chooses someone really really liberal. it's not like he's not going to have a fight - he could pick the most conservative, reactionary judge in the country, and the hard-core right would dig in their heels, just because it was obama's choice. so why not go all out? yeah, that candidate might go down in flames - but then the next one can still be fairly liberal, and still seem like a much better choice.

well, it should keep the summer interesting._________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

As Justice Stevens expressed to me in the letter announcing his retirement, it is in the best interests of the Supreme Court to have a successor appointed and confirmed before the next term begins. And so I will move quickly to name a nominee, as I did with Justice Sotomayor.

Once again, I view the process of selecting a Supreme Court nominee as among my most serious responsibilities as President. And while we cannot replace Justice Stevens’ experience or wisdom, I will seek someone in the coming weeks with similar qualities — an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law, and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people. It will also be someone who, like Justice Stevens, knows that in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens. Much like they did with Justice Sotomayor, I hope the Senate will move quickly in the coming weeks to debate and then confirm my nominee so that the new Justice is seated in time for the fall term.

that being said, i sorta hope obama goes all out and chooses someone really really liberal. it's not like he's not going to have a fight - he could pick the most conservative, reactionary judge in the country, and the hard-core right would dig in their heels, just because it was obama's choice. so why not go all out?

Because he doesn't want someone really liberal. He wants an unchecked executive branch, and no meaningful civil rights wherever "terrorism" is concerned.

Hell, just last week the man came right out and said publicly that he intends to execute an American citizen sans trial, wherever and whenever they find him. No one remotely like Stevens would approve a program like that._________________Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil. ~ Ellen Degeneres

it's a mark of how far right the court has moved when you realized stevens, who was appointed by a republican, is now considered the leader of the liberal wing of the court.

we are probably stuck with a solid, radically conservative block on the court for some years, given the youth of roberts and alito. even scallia is easily good for another decade or more - he's only 74, and supreme court justices do seem to go on well into their 80's. my guess is that the first of that block to retire will be thomas - he's only 61, but he doesn't seem to be enjoying himself, and he's sure not building any legacy he needs to hang on to complete. he's such a party hack, though, he'll hang on doing nothing until the next republican president comes around. really, our only hope for a major change back towards even the center (never mind the left) is if this lot gets struck by lightning.

that being said, i sorta hope obama goes all out and chooses someone really really liberal. it's not like he's not going to have a fight - he could pick the most conservative, reactionary judge in the country, and the hard-core right would dig in their heels, just because it was obama's choice. so why not go all out? yeah, that candidate might go down in flames - but then the next one can still be fairly liberal, and still seem like a much better choice.

well, it should keep the summer interesting.

Wait, as a foreigner, I have to ask, the Supreme Court sit for life?_________________A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

yes, although Congress can impeach them or they could voluntarily resign.

Having that system is to further entrench conservatism no doubt. Or create "stability" as it is popularly called._________________A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

actually the thinking was to insulate justices from political pressures, so they could be free to interpret legal cases of the greatest national import without worrying about losing their jobs.

of course, i don't think it actually works that way anymore. on the other hand, it only further entrenches conservatism when the justices are themselves conservative--and you won't necessarily get conservative justices. just ask Eisenhower about that.